Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/17/19 in all areas

  1. Kind of misses the point. It's reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this" It is not reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this or I will withhold US government support for your country" Do you see the difference there? Have you missed all the references to "quid pro quo or did you not understand them " ?
    2 points
  2. It was questioned. It was investigated. It was found that nothing untoward occurred. It was debunked, including by Trumps own ambassadors, but then Rudy went on a campaign of gaslighting trying to show smoke where there was no fire. Then Trump extorted Ukraine president to go on CNN to say they were investigating Biden by holding up congressionally mandated military aid that would save Ukrainian lives in their fight with Russia. The only thing which made the payment proceed was the whistle blower who followed all appropriate channels and policies but had their concern suppressed by the White House in a manner that broke our whistleblower laws. It wasn’t until congress said they were investigating that funding went through without the Ukrainian President lying on Trumps behalf to further gaslight and damage Biden. Anyway, Biden’s role on that board was questioned, it was investigated, and it was found to be a non-issue. This was the consensus even among Trumps officials. Likewise with the debunked Crowd Strike conjecture that it was Ukraine who interfered in US elections, not Russia. Trumps own Homeland Security secretary told him directly and repeatedly that one was bullshit, but truth wasn’t the goal here.
    2 points
  3. In various threads we have (albeit briefly) touched on the fact that resistant bacteria are starting to overwhelm our ability to treat them. Now the CDC has issued a new antibiotic resistance threat report, Basically every 4 hours a new resistant strain is detected and about 35k people die every year due to resistant strains. Countermeasures that have started since the last report came out (2013) were less effective than hoped. Among the biggest threats currently are resistant Acinetobacter, Candida auris, Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium), carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. There are a lot of issues that have to solved outside the clinical environment, such as reducing or stopping the massive use of antibiotics in agriculture. There, antibiotics are routinely used to fatten animals which results in massive amounts of antibiotics released into the environment and enter the human food chain. Another aspects are procedures in health care (including elderly care) which are often not up to par to limit microbe spread. The challenge is that a single failure can lead to spread through the health care services. There are folks still hoping that we will find an alternative treatment that will be as useful as antibiotics (which we messed up badly) but so far not alternative golden bullet is really in sight (yes there are some developments which can be useful but for the most part they have potential and/or have not shown to be effective in vivo). As a result, it seems that we are indeed moving straight toward the projected post-antibiotic era. Personally (and of course biased by my own research), I think we need to accelerate our understanding of bacterial physiology in order to develop effective countermeasures from the bottom up, as in most cases we only have a very rough understanding how antimicrobial substances actually kill bacteria (which to some extent is also true for antifungals and fungi).
    1 point
  4. This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now. Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it. Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.
    1 point
  5. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of "conflict of interest" and how these issues are normally navigated. Let's assume for a moment that the allegations are credible. A normal (assuming that this also means non-corrupt) President (or other person of power) who has a conflict of interest would step away from such investigation and would task the respective organization (e.g. DOJ) to run point. Ideally with someone heading the investigation who is sufficiently removed so that the investigation is not tainted by the conflict of interest. An example of a similar situation was appointing Robert Mueller, for example. Key point here is that one is removed from direct interference to resolve the conflict. Especially considering the scope of the Presidency, investigation of individuals is generally not something that a President would personally be involved in, instead the respective branches of law enforcement should have taken point (which they would not do, if there was no real reasons to do so...) A number of things that you would not do would include for example: - circumvent normal communication channels and get folks involved that are more loyal, but normally not part of the process - get folks involved that work for you directly (say, personal attorneys) and not for the organization you work for - fire folks who warn you of a potential conflict of interest - hide evidence for a conflict of interest. - demand persecution of political rivals or persons connected to them, if there are investigations, they should be handled as independently as possible (see above, and also note the lack of interaction between the Obama WH and FBI). As you can see, it is not an either or situation. There are, in fact, a lot of things one might do and many more things one should not do in cases of conflict. And you may take a guess or two to what Trump decided to do in this matter.
    1 point
  6. I take it that you understand paraphrasing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/06/trump-impeachment-inquiry-ukraine-testimony-bill-taylor
    1 point
  7. Either you’re not following the situation closely enough to comment here or you’re being obtuse / willfully ignorant. That’s obviously not a quote, but is an accurate summary. Since you asked, here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-guide-to-trumps-allegations-about-ukraine-china-and-the-bidens/ I don’t have to. Hunter Biden is not the one under impeachment investigations and it’s an obvious red herring. That said, I personally don’t think he should’ve been on that board, but also accept the conclusions of our diplomats and intelligence agencies that there was nothing untoward about his having that seat. It was dumb, had bad optics, and frankly wouldn’t have happened if his daddy wasn’t VP, but it was not illegal or corrupt. It’s also a distraction I have no interest in chasing with you. You seem to accept the argument that Trump was interested merely in weeding out corruption in Ukraine to ensure our money was spent appropriately, and that this was not actually about smearing a political opponent for personal gain, that it just “happened” to be that the Biden’s were involved, but the true focus here was on avoiding corruption. Sure. Okay, fine. For purposes of this discussion, Let’s go with that. It’s fascinating then that Trump ignored his Pentagons own certification that the country was already doing enough to weed our corruption and that the aid should go through without delay... His own people signed off: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/09/29/trump-claim-on-stalled-aid-for-ukraine-draws-new-scrutiny/
    1 point
  8. My favorite is that when one drinks, one is drinking some atoms that were in T. Rex pee.
    1 point
  9. I don’t see any of this as about winning and losing. We’re all losing right now. We’re focused on the reality tv bullshit instead of the things which truly matter in our lives and the lives of those we love. Were not only shitting on our collective present, but on the future potential of our children.
    1 point
  10. Light travels through a vacuum. We are a vacuum? And how would we drag these singularities around if they are non-reactive? ! Moderator Note This hand-waving isn't going to get you where you need to be. We need a model. We need to have at least one foot in the science realm, and you've squandered your opportunities to do that. Closed. Don't bring this up again
    1 point
  11. As some of you probably know, the Square Kilometre Array will become the biggest radio telescope on Earth, with a collecting area of 1 square kilometre. The construction will start in 2021 and the first light is expected to take place in 2027. It will cover the frequencies from 50 MHz to 15 Ghz. But what I wanted to share with you guys is a new study about how far the SKA can 'listen'. A recent study points out that the SKA could detect extraterrestrial airport radars 200 light years away. SPAM DELETED What do you guys think?
    1 point
  12. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the rules require you to provide support (math or evidence) for your claims.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.